tomorrow, my interview with the senators known as the three amigos. the center of every foreign policy debate in this country over a decade and sitting down with me on capitol hill and fascinating and lively hour from the battle over benghazi to the upheavel in egypt and america's place in the world. everything will be on the table lindsey graham, for what proves to be a fascinating hour. everything will be on the table that's john mac cane, joe lieberman and lindsey graham tomorrow night. that's all for tonight. we begin as we do every night keeping them honest, looking for facts, looking for facts, not supporting democrats or republicans. our goal is just report, finding the facts, finding the truth. we did that last week.

again, the more we look into it, the more we find people in powerful and influential places saying things that just don't square with the facts. it's about a u.n. treaty that failed to be ratified by the senate. a treaty that was meant to encourage other countries to be more like the u.s. on equal rights of the disabled. if other countries adopted better treatment of their disabled citizens, the idea is that disabled americans who visit or live in other countries would also benefit. 125 countries ratified the treaty. it was supported by george bush, signed by the current president, and has support from both sides of the aisle like john mccain and past republican leaders like bob dole, himself a world war ii veteran. he was wheeled onto the senate floor, you can see, for the vote he hoped to see the treaty ratified. instead after pressure from special interest groups, 38 republicans some vowing to support the treaty voted no. one of the loudest critics was the home school legal defense association, the hslda. it's a powerful lob by whose

leader you're about to meet. they had some very strong things to say about the treaty, but the notion was basically this. if it were to pass, they said, the u.n. treaty would somehow let the u.n. mandate how parents of disabled kids in america cared for their children. americans -- among the senators echoing that center is mike lee of utah. keeping them honest, though, when i asked him to specify how this u.n. influence might manifest itself, last week when i asked him this, here's the answer he gave. >> can you name any other u.n. treaty that has forced changes in u.s. law? >> i didn't come prepared to cite supreme court precedent on this point but it's a well -- >> what you're saying is totally hypothetical. you're using a bunch of hypotheticals saying this is going to force abortion rights for disabled people overseas. i mean, some groups are saying children with glasses are going be taken from their parents. you're using all these very scary hypotheticals. you can't even cite one case where a u.n. treaty has ever

impacted u.s. law? >> not aware of one person who is saying children with glasses are going to be taken away from their parents. the article 7 concern from the treaty relates to the best interests of the child would be injected into the decision of how to care for a disabled child. historically in the united states -- >> again, you can't name one u.n. treaty that has ever had an impact on u.s. law? >> well, i can't name one u.s. treaty that has been the deciding factor in a decision. it may well happen. i didn't come prepared to cite supreme court precedent. >> about the eyeglass claim i mentioned, the head of the hsdla made it. we'll hear it in a minute. they also said they would dictate how many handicapped spaces in church parking lots in america and allow diplomats in geneva change the law.

but the evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny from richard thornburgh, himself the father of a disabled son. >> it has no effect whatsoever within this country. it gives no jurisdiction to the u.n. over any individual or any government within the united states. i am puzzled as to where these strong objections come from. >> keep in mind, that was the nation's former top law enforcement official and a life-long republican who believes there's nothing to the charges against the u.n. disability treaty. michael ferras is making a lot of the charges. he's chairman of the home school legal defense association and also chancellor of the patrick harry college. he also made the claim about children with eyeglasses. here's what he said in a radio interview with the american family association. >> the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty and so my kid wears glasses. now they're disabled. now the u.n. gets control over them. >> so u.n. bureaucrats could get control over his child if they decided to define disability as kids with glasses. so keep that sound bite in mind.

it came up earlier tonight when i spoke with michael ferras. mr. ferras, you have been saying this u.n. treaty would allow u.n. bureaucrats based in geneva to take control of american kids. you said under this treaty the u.n. could define disability as kids who wore eyeglasses and therefore they would come under u.n. control. that's made up, though. how can you say that? >> well, first of all, i didn't say those things exactly. there are two different threads of the argument. one is that -- >> you actually did say that. you were on a radio program and i have the quote. >> let me give it to you straight. the eyeglasses comment was to illustrate the fact there's no definition of disability in the treaty. >> right, it's left up to each country to define disability as per domestic law. >> no, it is not. it says it is an evolving concept and it will be defined by the u.n. committee of experts that implement the treaty. >> according to senate foreign relations committee, the treaty leaves it up to each state to define disability under domestic law.

>> maybe the senate foreign relations committee said, but that's not what the vienna conventional law of treaty says, nor is it what the treaty itself says. it's a super treaty that overrides inconsistent provisions in domestic law. under the vienna convention law of treaties no nation's law ever supersedes a treaty in the international arena. so you just need to understand the basics of international law which apparently is a little different for you and some of the people that are speaking about this. >> i actually understand it quite well, but there's also an advice and consent that the senate negotiated and put on this treaty which specifies this does not alter u.s. law in any way. this treaty does not supersede u.s. law. >> it doesn't have such a broad reservation that you're talking about there. there's a disability definition reservation that tracks it to a degree. but as a general proposition, we need to understand that the treaty is a law.

it's not a declaration. >> what treaty -- what u.n. treaty has forced a state or taken over -- what u.n. bureaucrat has control over a american child under any treaty? >> the hague convention on the international kidnapping which has a wild trial. i litigated a case this summer where an american mom lost her ability to litigate for the custody of her children, an her children were sent to zimbabwe where her canadian husband took refuge. that's a case i litigated this summer under that treaty. the supreme court in a case i wrote an amicus brief in and they specifically cited my brief dealing with juvenile justice issues used the u.n. convention on the rights of the child to interpret american law. a federal district court -- >> but the u.s. hasn't even signed on to the treaty on the law. >> surprise, surprise, that's even more my point. >> you also claim that if the u.s. signed on to this treaty, we would be, quote, signing up to be an official socialist nation.

>> that's true. >> this was a treaty negotiated under president bush originally back in 2001. john mccain supports it, former attorney general richard thornburgh. you honestly say they want to be a socialist nation? >> the treatcy is economic, social and cultural rights at its core. the united states refused to adopt the international covenant on rights in the '60s. the soviet bloc has adopted those treaties. the united states has never, ever adopted one of these treaties -- >> you think george bush wants this to be a socialist nation? >> we have a big national debt because of the spending patterns of both republicans and democrats. >> i'm just curious. so you're saying he wants socialism, john mccain wants socialism. richard thornburgh wants socialism. >> i'm sure you have more than once criticized president bush for not having the capacity to understand all the issues. >> actually, i haven't. >> i don't think he understood this particular issue. >> you've also claimed this

treaty will ban spanking in america it will determine how many parking spaces a church has set aside for disabled people. again, there is not anything in this treaty that changes u.s. law. in fact, a lot of this is based on the americans with disabilities act which is the gold standard which i think you even support. and it doesn't alter u.s. law. >> anderson, you're just wrong about that. >> i have an ll in public international law from the university of london. >> i'm sure you're much smarter than i. >> maybe on this particular -- i have studied this subject. if you wrote that statement, if john kerry wrote that statement on an international law exam where i teach that subject, i would flunk you. >> but you're alleging somehow some u.n. committee of bureaucrats based in geneva is going to have the power to change u.s. law. as you know under this treaty, that u.n. committee has -- gives non-binding recommendations to countries about how to treat disabled people. they have no power to change law. and under this treaty, it's left to each country, again, to apply the term disability consistent with its own domestic law.

>> anderson, i'm going to give you a video clip for a u.n. hearing held the day before the senate vote, where in the u.n., in new york city, a disability advocate said that we need to make sure that we implement this treaty as a superceding document. that means that it overrides national law. and the idea that you're portraying about this, basically, from watching your video clips, when a democrat says something, that's a fact. when a conservative says something, that's an unproven allegation. >> actually, no. you're saying richard thornburgh is democrat because we had him on the show? he's a father of a disabled child studying this for 30 years and has a personal stake in this and he says you're completely making stuff up. >> i say he's absolutely wrong and he doesn't have the degree in international law. i do. i teach international law. and so, he simply just is wrong about that. he can say what he wants to say, but he's an advocate for the treaty. i'm telling you it's a matter of reality -- >> so the recommended conditions that were approved by the senate foreign relations committee and attached to this treaty that

restrict the power of the treaty and this resolution that advises and consent, which includes reservations and conditions that limit and clarify the extent of any obligations this treaty might entail, i mean, are you saying they have no impact? my understanding is that the supreme court has ruled that these kind of conditions from a senate committee which are attached to this treaty trump any language in that treaty. >> you're absolutely right about that point. if a r.u.d. is correctly written, it will limit the effect of the treaty. for example, the non-self-executing provision of the treaty. it was well written. it will work. it will stop an american court from implementing the treaty without first being pursued in a proper legislative fashion or in an administrative fashion by the political branches of government. that doesn't mean that the united states is not obligated to obey the treaty. >> i just don't see any real -- you can cite specific cases

where individuals have argued in court or judges have used u.n. conventions, but i don't see any u.n. bureaucrats ruling, changing the laws of states and ruling over american children. >> well, it's because you don't open your eyes. the most distressing thing was how often the senators spent time praising themselves and praising each other and praising bob dole for their work on this rather than actually reading the document and talking about the articles within the treaty. >> i think most of them were praising bob dole not just for his service in the senate but also his service to the country which he was wounded and disabled but i get your point. thank you for being on and arguing it well. >> thank you. >> that's one view. we had to trim that interview for time, but you can see the entire conversation online at ac360.com. as for what he said about former attorney general mr. thornburgh, here is mr. thornburgh's reaction. quote, my service as attorney general of the united states under president ronald reagan and president george h.w. bush provides a solid grounding for my opinion on the interpretation of this treaty. it's absurd to think that i

would support a treaty that would adversely impact the well-being of my own son. who has severe intellectual and physical disabilities as has been implied. he continues to write that america continues to be a leader on this important human rights issue. let's dig deeper and talk to cnn senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. jeff, what's your reaction to what mr. ferras says? >> first, it's important to put into political context what he's saying. hatred of the united nations is now a bedrock principle of the conservative movement in this country. so anything relating to the united states -- the united nations, even something as uncontroversial as this treaty, draws objections based on hypothetical and as far as i can tell, extremely far fetched ideas about what the treaty might do. >> he said there are many cases of u.n. treaty becoming u.s. law. u.n. treaty superseding u.s. law, becoming the law of the land. >> a, not true. as far as i am aware in any significant case. >> he cites a multitude of cases.

>> i was familiar with one of the cases he cited, the bond case, which was not in the supreme court about the treaty obligation to the united states at all. >> the united nations? >> the united nations. no, no. the treaty obligations of the united states under the united nations at all. the other point is that the congress has said, john kerry, who is chairman of the foreign relations committee, has said there is no rights created to sue in an american court based on this treaty. you can't wave this treaty and go into an american courtroom and say we're going to take your kids away. you can't do anything in an american courtroom under this treaty. >> the thing he keeps saying and a lot of supporters of this keep saying is a u.n. bureaucracy, a u.n. bureaucrat based in geneva, which they keep pointing out, is going to have power over an american child. that just does not seem to be the case. >> it is not true. it is simply an invented paranoid fantasy about what could happen.

which is contrary to everything in this law. as you pointed out, this is not some internationalist left-wing conspiracy. this is a very much a bipartisan idea. george w. bush, rob dole, richard thornburgh, not exactly a list of socialists. they're all for this treaty. and that's because it's really a very simple, basic idea. >> supporters of this u.n. treaty say because the senate has these r.u.d.s, these advise and consent things that limit the scope and define the scope of it, that is a protection that this treaty would ever be used to try to change u.s. law. he says that's not the case. >> it is the case because these objections that he was raising, they were raised at the committee level. and what the sponsors of the treaty did was, okay, we don't think this is a legitimate

concern but just to be doubly sure that we know what this treaty means, they put in essentially amendments that say you can't go to an american court and try to enforce this treaty. the u.n., no one can do that. so again, it's a paranoid fantasy. it's not reality. >> are there cases where -- that you know of where u.n. bureaucrats, you know, not even english-speaking u.n. bureaucrats living in geneva or switzerland, have control over u.s. kids somehow or changed the laws of the united states? >> control over kids, control over state law, control over the american educational system, never, absolutely not. >> all right. jeff toobin, thanks. let us know what you think. we're on twitter right now. @andersoncooper. i'll be tweeting tonight. up next, are republicans and democrats looking for ways of climbing down from the fiscal cliff? the president, house speaker john boehner meeting at the white house. new signs of give on both sides but can either side go far enough without losing their core

of supporters?

welcome back "raw politics" now. 22 worried days until america goes off the fiscal cliff. or maybe 21 worrying days and one panicking night. there are signs even three weeks out that neither side really wants to push it to the very end. president obama today speaking at a truck engine plant in michigan said he's willing to give a little but he's not willing to compromise when it comes to higher taxes on the wealthiest americans. notice, though, he did not say he was married to a specific rate, such as all the way back to the clinton-era levels. as for house speaker boehner who he met with yesterday at the white house, he said the gop offer remains the same, no rate hikes. however, there were more signs over the weekend that republican unity may be cracking a little bit with a number of lawmakers who want to take the tax issue off the table asap. >> there is a growing group of

folks looking at this and realizes we don't have a lot of cards as it relates to the tax issue before year end. we have one house, that's it. the presidency and the senate is in the democrats' hands. a lot of people are putting forth a theory. i actually think it has merit. i actually am beginning to believe that's the best route for us to take. >> what we ought to be working on is the other 93% because even if you do what he wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7% of the deficit. what we have done is spend ourselves into a hole. we're not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it. so will i accept the tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? yes. >> a number of recent polls show americans by and large agree. the latest from george washington university, 60% favor raising taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year. even bigger majority, 64% favor raising taxes on large

corporations. somewhat more problematic, the president's intention to compromise on entitlements. they say no to raising medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. joining me now to talk about the possible outlines of the deal and hopefully pronounce the words correctly as well as the potential landmines, ari fleischer and van jones. former obama adviser and co-founder of rebuild the dream. so van, apart from my bad grammar, how close do you think president obama and speaker boehner are to a deal? and from your perspective, is a bad deal better than no deal? >> well, no. i think a bad deal is a bad deal and we shouldn't accept it. republicans have the problem that all of the polls show the vast majority of the american people say that -- people who have done well in america should do well by america and start paying america back. this tax break, even george bush didn't want it to be permanent. somehow, republicans have gotten hung up on this one thing, turning tax policy in to theology. they can't let it go.

it has united the democratic party against them, and now most of the american people are on the other side of the debate. we can't talk about spending until we get out of the corner. >> ari, how much of the republican opposition is based on principle, to the raising of taxes on the wealthiest is based on principle and how much is based on a fear that they may face a primary challenge from more conservatives in their party or tea party candidates? >> i think it's impossible to know the second one. i think there are probably a number of people in potentially vulnerable situations where they do have to look on their right shoulder and worry about it. but i think the reason this is so strongly felt by republicans is the belief if you raise taxes, the government is going to spend the money anyway or the golf. government is going to waste the money. raising taxes is not a good answer. i think that's why you see republicans so theological about it, if you will, for such substantive reasons. but the numbers don't give anybody hope about solving deficits. if you raise the taxes on the rich, let's concede it's done.

you bring in about $600 billion over 10 years. you keep the tax rates the same way on everybody else, that costs the government $4 trillion over 10 years the way cbo counts it. so anderson, this debate has nothing to do with getting our fiscal house in order. it's about raising taxes on the rich. and i think it's hard for republicans to resist it. looks like the president is going to be somewhat successful. >> i don't know if i agree with you 100% on this, ari. i think the american people are pretty smart about this. i think if you look at where the american people are, it used to be a while ago people were afraid to say the word tax in america because grover norquist kind of had the whole country afraid to say the word. i think americans now are saying, listen. we want to be, to coin a phrase, conservative. if you have a war, you have to pay for that war. if you're going to do stuff like the republicans did with the medicare prescriptions, you have to pay for it. i think the republicans now look like a something for nothing party almost. i think americans --

>> van? >> we have to pay for this stuff that we actually are on the hook for now. >> to be consistent, you should raise the rates on everybody back to the clinton rates. what you're doing with that theory is making 2% of the country pay all of the nation's bills. >> no, no. that's not exactly right. >> hold on a second. if you were consistent and principled about what you said, the 10% rate would go up to 15% the way it was under bill clinton. the 25% rate would go up, too. all rates would go up. >> that would be a bad idea. let me tell you why that would be a bad idea. the 98% of americans if you raised taxes on them, it would hurt the economy. the top 2%, raising taxes on them is not going to change their economic behavior very much, and so you can actually begin to get some of that revenue back. the rest of the country, if you hit them with that $2,000, $3,000 -- >> don't say it's about people paying their bills. it's not about people paying their bills. >> do you think raising it on the wealthiest will change their behavior? >> of course it will change their behavior, anderson. we're already seeing it right now. people are moving their

charitable contributions into 2012. there will be less contributions going out in 2013. it always does. the question is what impact will it have on the economy and job creation and growth. my belief is it's going to hinder it. it's going to hinder it. this debate is a false debate because the real debate is going to be the one that comes over spending. that's where we're really putting a damper on america's growth. we cannot go forward with trillion dollar deficits. and raising the taxes on the rich is not going to solve the trillion dollar deficit problem. this is too small. >> and van, as a democrat, do you acknowledge the spending cuts are necessary, as well? >> i think we're going to do something about spending. but if you look at where americans are in their great wisdom looking, we ask should we be giving corporate welfare to big oil companies? no, cut the spending there. you shouldn't be giving so much money to defense contractors. there are places to cut, but we can't have a discussion on where to cut because republicans have gotten themselves so far out on this one tiny issue. they want to fight and die on the hill, i think it's bad for them and bad for the country.

>> anderson, it used to be about balance. there's nothing balanced. >> this is balanced. >> it's all taxes now. we can't even begin to talk about -- hold on, van. >> we can -- >> hold on. van, van, hold on. you don't get to interrupt all the time. the president used to say we need a balanced plan that includes taxes and spending. now they're saying we can't talk about spending until we have taxes. that's a change in position. that's one of the reasons the mood in washington is so bad. the president has the leverage, he's got the upper hand, but he's also poisoning the well. >> the final thought from you, van, and then we have to go. >> i think the president is taking a balanced approach. we are talking about spending cuts. the problem i think we have right now is where we can cut and where we can come together and cut, we can't even have that conversation because republicans are taking such an extreme position. i think americans are wise about wanting the people who have done well in america to do well by america and start paying america back. >> thank you. amazing medical news ahead. really remarkable stuff. an experimental treatment that brought a little girl back from the brink of death. that's the little girl.

last spring, it looked like emma was going to lose her battle against leukemia, and doctors used, get this, a strain of hiv to save her life. dr. sanjay gupta joins me ahead to explain. well, if it isn't mr. margin. mr. margin? don't be modest, bob. you found a better way to pack a bowling ball. that was ups. and who called ups? you did, bob. i just asked a question. it takes a long time to pack a bowling ball. the last guy pitched more ball packers. but you... you consulted ups. you found a better way. that's logistics. that's margin. find out what else ups knows. i'll do that. you're on a roll. that's funny. i wasn't being funny, bob. i know. he loves risk. but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks,

or jumping into the market, he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things, like what the market is doing and being ready, no matter what happens, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense, from td ameritrade.

hey, tonight, some really fascinating medical news to tell you about. a little girl who last spring was dying of leukemia is now healthy with no signs of cancer. her name is emma whitehead and the fact she's alive today is remarkable. even more astounding is how doctors were able to bring her back from the brink of death.

they used disabled hiv, the virus that causes aids, to basically reprogram her immune system to kill cancer cells. hiv. it seems counterintuitive to most of us that a virus as deadly as hiv or ultimately deadly could actually help save someone's life. it's a very experimental treatment. it's developed by researchers at the university of pennsylvania. they tested it on a dozen patients, and today they're presenting their latest results. emma was one of the first children to get the treatment. before it saved her, it nearly killed her. it's a very, very difficult treatment to undergo. but seven months later she is still in complete remission. our chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta joins me now. i find this incredible, this little girl, emma whitehead, alive today because of this therapy. i don't understand how this works at all. how does this actually kill the cancer? >> this is something people have been talking about for some time and have used in forms, but in a nutshell, it's teaching the body's immune system that cancer

is foreign, it's bad, and should be attacked using the body's immune system. different than using chemotherapy to achieve those goals. you take out some of the body's immune cells and basically reprogram them. you put genetic material into them that teaches the cells to attack that cancer. what's interesting here is they're using a deadened form of the hiv virus to transport that genetic material into cells. hiv very good to getting to cells. they're putting the genetic material sort of as a piggyback on to the virus. and they're putting the t-cells onto the body and it attacks the cancer. the person oftentimes gets very sick. their immune system gets blown up so it's a long hospitalization, a tough hospitalization, but in her case, as you pointed out, it's quite remarkable. >> what her prognosis and how did the other patients do? >> this is new, and that's what's fun about reporting on this stuff because this is, in part, you know, how medical history is sort of made. what we know is that she's doing

very well right now. there aren't many patients who have had this done. i wrote down some of the numbers. they have tried this in adults. three adults have had complete remission. no signs of disease. keep in mind, these are patients for whom nothing was really working anymore. four adults improved but did not have complete remission. there was one other child who improved for two months and then relapsed and also two adults for whom it didn't work at all. still trying to figure out are there some people for whom this is going to work better and what is the timing? how quickly after the treatment do you expect it to work? these are unanswered questions still. >> so, i mean, i guess, if they can duplicate the results, could the treatment eventually replace bone marrow transplants? >> that's what they're thinking and hoping. we're not there yet. first, the financials, this is about $20,000 for a treatment which is not cheap by any means, but it is a lot cheaper than a bone marrow transplant. and the other thing, as they get more results back, they'll answer more questions.

think about this, if you have these cells in your body that are now trained to recognize that cancer, if the cancer were ever to come back, it is possible that these cells could immediately attack it. so it's kind of almost like a cancer vaccine. again, it's early in the studies, but imagine that, anderson. if you had these cells in your body, you could safely say you wouldn't get that cancer again. >> so other teams have been using t-cells, i know, to target not just leukemia, other cancers. you saw this type of therapy recently at md anderson. are they seeing similar results? >> they are, and i tell you, i visited with one of the first patients getting the therapy. this is brian rose, a baseball coach from the midwest. he has stage iv melanoma. melanoma that has spread throughout his body. there aren't any good options or long-term options certainly to treat this. what you're watching there is them actually doing the same thing. they're removing lots of blood. then eventually, they're going to take the t-cells

specifically, and they grow them with a growth factor and add other immune cells. eventually, you have this cancer concoction they put back into the body. again, patients get really sick because you're essentially just ramping up the immune system. sometimes 100, 1,000 times normal, but once they get through that, sometimes with the help of medications, they can have pretty astonishing results. >> incredible. sanjay, appreciate the explanation. thanks. amazing stuff. a lot more happening tonight, including a controversy over a movie that purports to tell the story of the hunt for osama bin laden. it's raking in awards and raising questions about a scene involving torture. did the filmmakers go too far and did the movie distort the facts? peter bergen joins me ahead and so does former cia officer bob baer.

the australian radio hosts behind the prank call to a british hospital speak out about the tragic suicide of the nurse who took the call. what they're saying to her family when we continue.

some major film critics are raving about a new movie "zero dark 30" that is a fictional account of the decades-long manhunt for osama bin laden. zero dark 30 is a code by the military for half past midnight. the movie hasn't opened in theaters yet but already pulling in awards and is expected to be an oscar contender. >> you really believe this story? osama bin laden? >> yeah. >> the movie is also stirring up controversy because of a torture scene. the movie contains some extremely graphic scenes of a cia officer interrogating an al qaeda detainee. waterboarding, sleep deprivation beatings and other physical abuse and torture are in detail leaving some to ask, does the film go too far and is it accurate in talking about the use of abusive or enhanced interrogation techniques in the hunt for osama bin laden and in ultimately finding osama bin laden? cnn national security analyst peter bergen is an adviser for the film and his latest book

"manhunt" and he joins me with cnn contributor and former cia officer bob baer. peter, you have seen the movie. i have, as well. you were an unpaid adviser. what did the filmmakers get wrong in terms of -- i mean, it was -- there was a lot of reporting, the screenwriter did to kind of suss out the facts but in terms of the torture sequence, were they right that waterboarding led to the information that led to bin laden? >> not according to the senate intelligence committee. the film is a great film and it covers a lot of themes about the war on terror and the decade-long struggle against al qaeda. and i mean, as a sort of overall picture, there's a lot of things that are good about the film. but the fact that is senate intelligence committee which has spent three years investigating the claim that coercive interrogation techniques led to bin laden amongst other claims found that there was no, basically no truth to that. they haven't released their official report yet, but the heads of the committee have

publicly stated this several months ago. >> in the film, the first 20 or 30 minutes, probably 20 minutes, is a rather extended interrogation sequence and some of the techniques are -- would be classified as torture, i guess. it's an arguable point, but waterboarding used to be classified as torture when the khmer rouge did it. you took issue with how the interrogations were portrayed in an early version. >> we saw an early cut similar to what you saw, anderson, and i said that i think the scenes are overwrought an the screenwriter told me that they, in fact, turned down some of the scenes. certainly, people were abused in cia custody who were members of al qaeda, but they weren't beaten to a pulp as was in an earlier cut. so, you know, with the filmmakers i think have behaved in a very responsible way in the sense they have taken outside advice an they obviously did a lot of reporting and it's after all a movie. but that said, i think half an hour of the film is very, very

visceral and viewers are going to walk away with the feeling, i think wrongly, that torture somehow netted bin laden. i think that's the bottom line they'll come away from in the film. >> bob, do you see danger in hollywood defining this part of the story? >> absolutely. this is the version we're going to be living with for the next however many years, that torture found us bin laden, and it's just not true as peter said. i can't emphasize this enough. he was found with traditional sources, traditional espionage. the way things -- it was detective work and it had nothing to do with torture. i have seen no credible version of that someone was broken, gave up bin laden's location, and the problem is the next time we go into a war, people are going to have this movie on their minds. as good as the movie is, you know, as graphic as it is, and the rest of it, it's simply not

the way it happened. and in that sense, it's not helpful. >> the movie portrays the cia analysts and also cia officers in the field and then obviously special forces. but in reality, there was an fbi component and a lot of dissension between the fbi and the cia, bob. >> sure. >> well, the fbi doesn't -- >> go ahead. >> bob, go ahead. >> the fbi is against torture. it can't take the evidence and take it into court. an fbi agent who interrogated khalid sheik muhammad disagreed that torture got anyone anywhere. they're completely opposed to it. the cia was reluctant to use torture, too. it was the pentagon. and as we know, as peter said, the results are mixed. >> so, peter, do you fear this becomes the narrative? that people will see this and think, okay, waterboarding got bin laden? >> yeah. i mean, i think that's the bottom line.

i don't think that's not the filmmaker's intent, and they have many other scenes in the movie about how the relationship with the foreign intelligence service derived a very important lead, the real name of bin laden's courier, how they tracked down the cell phones he was using and how human spies on the ground in pakistan tracked him to where he was hiding with bin laden. but at the end of the day when somebody pulls something out of a file and it's from foreign intelligence service, that's not an inherently dramatic scene as opposed to half an hour of waterboarding and all of the things that happened in the beginning of the film. it's certainly i don't think the filmmaker's intent to make that message but i think people walk away from the film saying, hey, torture got us bin laden. >> peter and bob, thanks very much. you can read peter's op-ed on this at cnn.com. >> up next, the death of a superstar singer and reality star, jenni rivera killed in a plane crash in mexico. you may not have heard of her. she had millions of fans. we'll remember her life next çtol

welcome back tonight. millions of jenni rivera's fans are mourning her death in a plane crash. her family reeling from the scene. at the crash site in northern mexico, a very sobering scene, seven people were on board the learjet, there were no survivors. it's not yet known what caused the plane to go down. fans admired her not only for her strength but her powerful voice. one of her early albums was a tribute to the slain singer,

sele selena. that album helped put rivera on the map, and some believe her legacy could eclipse that of selena's. here's her story. ♪ singer jenni rivera was a household name to millions in the u.s. and mexico. she released her first album in 1999 and her popularity exploded. she went on to sell more than 15 million records, making her one of the most popular latin artists of the past two decades. she recently won two billboard music awards and was nominated for several latin grammy awards. magazine "people in espanol" named her to the list of 25 most powerful women. ♪ known as the diva, her audience was drawn to her powerhouse spanish language performances of original mexican ballads. ♪ speaking on the senate floor today, senator marco rubio said rivera was a real american success story.

>> she was a singer in a genre of music that is largely dominated by males. yet she brought a powerful voice to that genre where she sung frankly about her struggles to give her children a better life in this country. >> it was her openness with her struggles that drew her fans even closer. born in long beach, california to mexican immigrant parents, the 43-year-old performer had struggled through tough financial times and a tumultuous personal life. single mom at 15 and mother of five, she had been married three times and often joked about how she once sold cans for scrap metal at her family's stand at a los angeles flea market. >> translator: it is very flattering when they tell me i'm a great artist, a great entertainer, that i can entertain the audience, that i can get in the recording studio and come up with a great production. but before that, i was a businesswoman. i'm primarily business minded. >> rivera eventually became the owner of her own music and tv

production company, a fragrance brand and a clothing line. in her latest professional chapter, she set her eyes on hollywood where she also had many admirers. after learning of her death, actor mario lopez tweeted what an amazing lady. cool, smart, funny, and talented. such a travesty. god bless her family. many hollywood insiders believe she was on the verge of crossing over to the english language u.s. market. abc had recently signed her to star in a sitcom and she was writing songs in english and signed with a powerful hollywood talent agency. ♪ the world rarely sees someone who has had such a profound impact on so many, universal music group said in a statement from her incredibly versatile talent to the way she embraced her fans around the world, jenni was simply incomparable. family members were planning to travel to mexico as investigators work to determine what caused the crash. sad loss for so many. >> let's get the latest on other stories we're following. isha sesay is here with the "360 news and business bulletin."

>> anderson, the navy s.e.a.l. killed in afghanistan after a successful raid to free an american doctor who was held hostage has been identified. petty officer nicklas checque of monroeville, pennsylvania, was a member of the elite seal team six, according to a u.s. official. that's the same unit that carried out the raid that killed osama bin laden. former international monetary fund dominique strauss-kahn has settled a lawsuit with the new york house keeper who accused him of sexually assaulted her. details of the settlement have not been released. two australian radio deejays that made a prank phone call to the british hospital where the duchess was being treated are speaking out. they spoke on australian television about the suicide of the nurse who put the prank call through to the ward where the duchess was. they said they're heartbroken and sorry and feel horrible for the nurse's family. >> i'm just so devastated for them. i'm really feeling for them. >> it's a shocking turn of

events. >> i just -- if we had any idea that something like this could be even possible to happen, you know, we couldn't see this happening. >> no. >> it was meant to be a prank call. >> and scary moments caught on tape in birmingham, alabama. a man being interviewed by an affiliate station wiat about severe storms in the area when the roof collapsed under heavy rainwater no serious injuries were reported. take a look. >> we had dogs -- he was in the cage. >> aah! >> oh my god! oh my god! oh my god! you all okay? you all okay? you all all right? >> really frightening. we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] this is amy. amy likes to invest in the market.

she also likes to ride her bike. she knows the potential for making or losing money can pop up anytime. that's why she trades with the leader in mobile trading. so she's always ready to take action, no matter how wily... or weird... or wonderfully the market's behaving... which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.